(BY SRI. JEEVAN KUMAR B S., ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 s. 313
Judgment
1. SRI. Y SHANMUGA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O Y DHARMALINGA REDDY R/AT NO.2, VITTAL VALUE 1ST CROSS, BIKASIPURA DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU 560 062. (BY SRI. JEEVAN KUMAR B S., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
KUMARI POORNIMA K, D/O SRI KENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT PLO NO. 322, SUMUKHA 7TH MAIN ROAD, 11TH CROSS ISRO LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 001.
THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560001.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UTTARAHALLI SUB DIVISION BBMP WARD NO. 197-VASANTHAPURA UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU 61. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35251 WP No. 18619 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENT, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/03/2024 AND INITIATE ACTION AS AGAINST THE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW (ANNEXURE-C), ETC. FIRST RESPONDENT THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a mandamus to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 12.03.2024 and initiate action against respondent No.1 in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has filed a Memo along with the action taken report, which discloses respondent Nos.2 and 3, upon noticing the illegal construction, have issued a notice dated 01.08.2024 under Section 313 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, ‘the Act’), a provisional order dated
09.08.2024 was passed under Section 248(1) of the Act and a show-cause notice dated 09.08.2024 under Section - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35251 WP No. 18619 of 2024 248(2) of the Act, against respondent No.1. It is also stated that a confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the Act was passed against respondent No.1 on
23.08.2024 and produced copies of the same as per Annexures ‘R1’ to R3’.
3. The memo and the documents are placed on record.
Having perused the documents, it is clear that, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already considered the representation of the petitioner and initiated action against respondent No.1. In view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK Ct: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.